About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
's investment in foreign-policy is national security insurance. there is nothing foreign about foreign policy anymore. smartcan make the small,. w vestments upfront and avoid more costly conflicts and greater burdens down the road. , we'vepast few months seen developments underscore the state -- stakes for having a strong and -- strong american presence in the world. that was a positive step toward stability in the volatile region of the world where we need partnerships. the committee is more than immersed in suyyruiaia. we have treated millions to humanitarian relief -- we have provided millions to humanitarian relief. i expect we will talk about syria somewhat today. having returned from beijing and north koreathe issue took center stage, we are reminded once again that america is the guardian of global security. we should be proud of that. one not turn our back on keys nor will we hesitate what we need to do to defend our allies. if budget is an analyst patient of our values and priorities -- this budget is an illustration of our values and priorities. i have a record of wanting to do defi
unwavering in her support of president reagan. just the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to sort of speak half-truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the placing of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some will tell you it was almost like moses parting the red sea. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly, the truth telling was not irrelevant. hope tonor ms. dissidents working behind the eastern bloc. domestically, they had a -- theyusly important were trying something very radical. they wanted a break with the economic policies of the past. the fact that they were not isolated, they could point to someone on the other side of the ocean in charge of this was important. that made quite a difference. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher, people who work closely to president reagan saying it made a difference. he is not on his own. there is an impressive leader in europe who shares his ideas. host: was it vice versa for her in britain? guest: it was. famously, they got along well. but there were differe
encounter with tamerlan in a pizza shop three months ago. the older brother argued with foreign policy, the wars in afghanistan and iraq and religion. tamerlan referred to the bible as a cheap copy of the koran and maybe of his countries are wars are based upon the bible. he had nothing against the american people. he had something against the american government. yeah. and dzhokhar became naturalized last september. federal officials told the ap his older brother had a green card but may have been thwarted by an assault charge. >> some ex-girlfriend. >> stephanie: right. you know, we'll find out more from the fbi because apparently russia had asked them to investigate him at one point but they came up with nothing and at that particular point. the mayor of boston. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. thank you to the law enforcement officials for working together. state police, boston police, fbi, all working together. that's when government works the best. i want to thank also the citizens out there. the last week, i know what's happening because of the bombing at the marathon. but to
who the individual is, if they are a foreign national -- >> or a group of individuals. >> -- or a group of individuals, it's the way which that person then initially directly connects to our policy. >> do you think that's right with respect to law enforcement, do you think the division between the timothy mcveigh's of the world and muhammads of the world? >> i think that it doesn't really. i mean, i believe -- this is from my experience, you cannot and should not get tunnel vision looking for a specific, you know, because somebody has a particular faith, they pray five times a day, therefore, it's an international terrorism versus a timothy mcveigh type. we have seen so many cases where you have -- >> let me just say, it could be a left wing terrorist, we literally know nothing. someone who is mad at his or her ex-spouse who happened to be working the medic tent. >> what you need to focus on is the activity, the race, religion, you know, all of that really is irrelevant when it comes to you have to be able to prove the activity isn't furtherance of terror. >> this is w
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in its opinion it relied not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture, but also on factual representations about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of t
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)